in previous videos in this series and especially in my book I argue that ancient authors of
historical literature employed techniques they had learned in the compositional textbooks for
paraphrasing and composing narrative they also used compositional devices identified
by classicists such as compression conflation displacement transferal and others classicists
to regard these as being practically universal in ancient historiography I have provided numerous
examples in Plutarch's lives where he likely employs these techniques and devices since the
gospel share much in common with ancient biography we should expect that their authors wrote within
the parameters of that genre in fact we should be surprised if they had not in this video we
will be examining a number of differences in the Gospels and assessing whether the solutions McGrew
offers are worth embracing I'll be focusing on three stories and here's the first Jesus
raises gyruss his daughter from the dead Mark and Luke report that gyruss came to Jesus and said
my daughter is about to die please come heal her Jesus agrees and while on their way some servants
from gyruss as house come and tell him that his daughter has just died Jesus tells gyruss to have
faith they then go to gyruss as house and Jesus raises his daughter from the dead when Matthew
reports the same story gyruss comes to Jesus and says my daughter has just died please come
heal her Jesus agrees they go to gyruss is home and Jesus raises the girl from the dead matthew
doesn't mention the servants who come to tell gyruss that his daughter had died because there
was no need since in Matthews version of the story she was already dead when gyruss approached Jesus
Matthew simplified the story but McGrew insist on harmonizing she writes the following if the girls
breathing were slowly and she scarcely seemed to be breathing at all when he left Jairus may have
left his house in a great hurry hoping to catch Jesus before her death as agustin suggests he
may have been mentally despairing or he may have been wavering between believing that she was dead
and believing that she was not dead yet this is after all a world without stethoscopes or
are other ways to check vital signs it is not especially implausible given the two accounts
that in his mentally agitated state he may have actually said something like this my daughter
is dying she's probably just now died but if you come and lay your hands on her she will live in
that case both Matthews and marks versions of his words would fall well within the range of normal
paraphrase and the differences can easily be attributed to the variations of truthful witness
memory it is interesting that both versions say that the girl will live if Jesus lays his hands
on her a harmonization of this kind takes account of this if Jesus comes and touches her she will
live whether she has died already as gyruss and his fear and grief is inclined to believe or is
alive as he still partly hopes this harmonization is one that Laconia does not consider whether or
not Matthew knew either from witnessing the scene and or from marks account that the servants came
later and told gyrus that his daughter was dead simply not including that part of the story is
not the same thing as deliberately suppressing it to try to make it look like she was dead before
gyrus left the house omitting that part of the story could be a matter of benign compression
merely telling a story more briefly without altering facts I regard my gurus harmonization
as possible however I think it's much less probable than the one proposed by myself and
others I think Matthews omission of the servants who informed gyrus of his daughter's death carries
more weight than McGrew was willing to acknowledge that Matthew simplifies his account elsewhere for
example Jesus healing the Centurions servant Jesus cursing a fig tree Jesus's parable of the vineyard
and wicked tenants suggests Matthews tendency to abbreviate a tendency acknowledged by most Gospel
scholars moreover classicists and Gospel scholars alike have long acknowledged that compression is a
compositional device employed by ancient writers the following evangelical commentators interpret
Matthew as representing gyruss as daughter is being already dead when he approach Jesus
Darrell Bock da Carson Craig Evans RT France Donald Hague nur Robert Hahn Craig keener John
Nolan grant Osborn and Stuart Weber Carson who can hardly be accused of having a low view of
Scripture flat-out rejects the view for which McGrew contends he writes his daughter has just
died attempts to make our TIA tell you Thiessen mean is now dying stem not from greek syntax but
from too simplistic a desire to harmonize his account with mark and luke better to recognise
that matthew having eliminated the messengers as extraneous to his purposes condenses so as
to be present at the outset what was actually true before Jesus reached the house such as Matthew's
condensed style elsewhere now let's move to our second story Jesus cleanses the temple and curses
a fig tree in my previous video I discussed three ways of expressing chronology floating explicit
and implicit I provided the example of Jesus cleansing the temple and cursing a fig tree to
reflect an implicit chronology that's so strong as to be virtually explicit to recap that story
mark narrates that after making his triumphal entry on Palm Sunday Jesus goes into the temple
looks around then leaves he and his disciples then go to Bethany where they spend the night
on Monday morning Jesus and His disciples return to Jerusalem while on their way Jesus curses a fig
tree when they arrive in Jerusalem he goes into the temple a second time this time observing some
activities of which he disapproves so he cleanses the temple overturning tables and driving away the
merchants and moneychangers later that day Jesus and His disciples returned to Bethany where they
spend another night on Tuesday morning they're returning again to Jerusalem and they noticed
that the fig tree Jesus had cursed on the previous day had withered and died Matthew
narrates the events differently he also has Jesus going into the temple after his triumphal entry
on Palm Sunday however Matthew moves the temple cleansing from Monday to Sunday and conflates it
with the first temple visit reported by mark on the next morning Jesus and his disciples
are returning to Jerusalem when he curses the fig tree and it withers before their very eyes McGrew
disagrees with this assessment asserting that matthew was narrating either chronologically
or dis chronologically if he was narrating dis chronologically then he falsely narrated
that the tree had withered before their eyes if I chronologically there is no discrepancy although
McGrew does not offer her opinion related to wide the differences there we are exposed once
again to her black and white concept of truthful reporting for her it's either one or the other
aa chronological or dis chronological there's no room for literary sensitivity whereby something
might be implied I agree that Matthew does not explicitly state that the temple cleansing was
on the same day as the triumphal entry or that he explicitly states that the fig tree withered
before their eyes however as stated previously in my opinion the chronology is in both instances is
so strongly implied that McGrew bears a much greater burden of proof to show otherwise than
she appears willing to acknowledge if you have any doubts about the truth of what I'm saying
I encourage you to pause this video and read the text in Matthew then assess for yourself whether
it's strongly implied that the temple would cleansing occurred on the same day as Jesus's
triumphal entry and that Jesus cursed the fig tree on the following day here's the reference
the chronology and Matthew is implied so strongly that even Norman Geisler and Thomas Hal were
willing to acknowledge that Matthew moved the day on which Jesus cleansed the temple from
Monday to Sunday why then do some regarded as being an athame to suggest that John may have
moved the temple cleansing to the beginning of Jesus's ministry or that he moved the day
and time of Jesus's crucifixion or that either John or mark moved the day that Mary anointed
Jesus yet McGrew insists that John's placement of the temple cleansing at the beginning of
Jesus's ministry requires that there were two temple cleansing and that either mark or John
has simply made a minor good-faith chronological error and one that would be quite easy to make
in relation to when the woman anointed Jesus now let's move along to our third and final example
jesus heals a Centurions servant remember the story of poppy giving an illegal and comum the
main difference in Plutarch's account pertains to whether a poppy sent his encomium via an emissary
who read it at a trial or if poppy himself had gone to the trial and read it in person well
the story of Jesus healing a Centurions servant is a very nice parallel and can be understood
in a similar fashion a Centurion wanted to ask Jesus to heal his servant who was very sick Luke
tells us the Centurion sent some Jewish elders to make the request on his behalf they come to Jesus
and say there's a Centurion who's been kind to our people he has a servant who's sick please heal him
Jesus agrees and they head toward the Centurions house but when the Centurion gets word that Jesus
is on his way he crafts a message and send some friends to relay it to Jesus the Centurion says
he's not worthy for you to enter his house but he knows you have Authority so he says just give
the command and his servant will be healed Jesus praises the faith of the Centurion and he'll says
servant without ever having seen the Centurion that's Luke's version of the story in Matthews
version the Centurion himself goes to Jesus and makes the request in person Jesus agrees to see
the servant the Centurion tells him I'm unworthy for you to enter my house but you have authority
so just give the command and my servant will be healed Jesus praises the Centurion for his faith
and heals his servant Matthew has simplified the story by airbrushing out the Jewish elders and
Friends the Centurion had sent and instead has the Centurion go to Jesus in person if you consult the
commentaries you'll see that what I have proposed is also the majority view taken by evangelical New
Testament scholars among whom are Darrell Bock F F Bruce da Carson RT France Donald Hague nur
Walter Lee felt Howard Marshall Leon Morris mark Strauss Robert Stein and Michael Wilkins however
there are three other approaches a minority of scholars take for dealing with the differences
in this story a very small number appeal to creative harmonization these suggests that the
Centurion sent the Jewish elders then his friends then later decided to go see Jesus Chrysostom
took this approach in the fourth century a more recent interpreter was Gleeson Archer although
this scenario is possible it's pure speculation it's also wrong since according to Luke the men
who had been sent by the Centurion returned to the house Luke doesn't include the Centurion
who had sent them because according to Luke he didn't go to see Jesus moreover Matthew tends to
simplify throughout his gospel even McGrew who virtually always prefers harmonisation thinks
this harmonization proposal is going too far another approach also appeals to harmonizing we
will call it metonymy metonymy is a rhetorical device a figure of speech whereby one thing is
substituted for another with which it's closely related for example the Gospels report that Pilate
skirts Jesus most readers understand that Pilate had ordered the scourging rather than being the
one holding the whip likewise when the Jewish elders informed Jesus that the Centurion had
built the synagogue for them readers naturally understand that the Centurion had either funded
or had overseen the project rather than having completed all of the work single handedly with
metonymy Matthew was doing something similar when saying that the Centurion went to Jesus
the Centurion sent others to Jesus to deliver a message on his behalf but Matthew is not saying
the Centurion appeared before Jesus in person this approach was proposed by Augustine and Calvin and
is held today by Vern Poitras the suggestion that metonymy is being used here by Matthew is also
problematic while one can easily see how sane the Centurion had built a synagogue would have been
understood by others to mean that the Centurion had funded or delegated the task I think it's a
bit of a stretch to claim this is what Matthew was doing pertaining to the Centurions communications
with Jesus consider the following statement President Trump attempted to negotiate North
Korea's nuclear disarmament with Kim jong-un this statement could easily be understood to mean that
he sent the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to do the work on his behalf however it would be a quite
different matter if the statement were President Trump went to Singapore in order to negotiate
North Korea's nuclear disarmament with Kim jong-un in this case we would think that President Trump
himself had gone burnt Poitras understands that matthew is not reporting the event precisely as
it had occurred and appears somewhat uncomfortable with that observation so he claims that matthew
does not specify exactly how the centurions request reads jesus however there are several
clues in Matthew that suggests he indeed specifies how the Centurions request reached Jesus Matthew
first tells us that a Centurion went to Jesus and made the request he then writes and Jesus said to
the Centurion go singular verb let it be done for you singular pronoun as you have believed singular
verb Matthew narrates Jesus speaking directly to the Centurion who's appeared before him moreover
Matthew does not mention emissaries so everything in Matthew's report suggests that Matthew intended
to communicate that the Centurion came to Jesus in person and Jesus spoke with him directly McGrew
takes a different approach and I'm not aware of any New Testament scholar who shares her view
conservative atheist or anywhere in between the Guru appeals to an error on Matthews part she
thinks Matthew erroneously believed the Centurion had gone to Jesus in person and that no emissaries
were involved she regards this as an innocent mistake on Matthews part but it's an error
no less she goes on to assert that had Matthew known that the Centurion had sent emissaries and
decided to simplify his account streamlining it by omitting mention of the emissaries and narrating
the Centurion going to Jesus in person Matthew would have been guilty of falsifying the aneri
t'v deceiving his readers and fictionalizing his account once again McGrew exhibits black and white
thinking that's out of touch with how people wrote in antiquity and even how we communicate today but
problems with Magoo's position do not stop here she's also being inconsistent let's put a bookmark
here and go to the story of Jesus's baptism where we observe a difference in the manner
God's voice at Jesus's baptism is recalled in the Synoptics Mark and Luke report God saying you are
my beloved son with you I am well pleased God is speaking directly to Jesus however Matthew reports
God saying this is my beloved son with him I am well pleased God is speaking directly to the crowd
given Markin priority it appears that Matthew has transferred the recipient of the message
from Jesus to the crowd why one can only guess perhaps Matthew desired to make God's message more
personal to his readers however McGrew describes this explanation as an unnecessarily complicated
hypothesis and an odd idea really I don't mean to appear retributive here but her response is
exaggerated yet again and sounds like an attempt to add emphasis in order to bolster a very weak
point so how does McGrew explain the difference she describes it as ordinary paraphrase that's
merely telling a story in slightly different words but observe her double standard if Matthew had
taken a message from a Centurion and delivered through emissaries and transferred it to having
been delivered by the Centurion who authored it McGrew says that's deceit and fictionalization but
if the same author takes a message from God that spoken directly to Jesus and transfers it to have
been spoken directly to the crowd about Jesus she says that's ordinary paraphrase and merely telling
a story in slightly different words is this not a double standard in contrast recognizing that
the gospel authors used compositional devices allows us to understand why the differences
are there it assists us in avoiding appeals to creative harmonizations which made themselves be
fictional and it provides a more plausible reason than error for many of the differences in summary
we have witnessed even more examples of McGrew x' black and white concept of truthful reporting we
have also seen that she's inconsistent in the application of her method and we have observed
another example of her offering an exaggerated response well that's it for this segment in the
next and final video I'll be discussing why this matter is important and from where I think the
divide may originate what do you think is going on when Matthew reports the timing of the temple
cleansing and cursing of the fig tree did he move the temple cleansing to a different day
if he did do you regard that as being deceptive let me know your thoughts in the comment section
you